POTUS says "Theisman should be jailed!"

cthia wrote:Long long list of failed revoultions, coups and plots.

All these are failures. As well established failing in one of these actions will absolutely get you tried (and probably exectued) for treason. This is normal and how the law works even (especially) in dodgy dictatorships.

The case we are discussing is when the revolution, coup or plot succeeds in changing the fundamental nature of the state. Please provide a new list covering cases where a successful revolution or coup results in the coup/revolution leaders being tried (successfully or otherwise)for treason.

Sorry to drag the topic aside, but...

cthia wrote:List of people convicted of high treason in England before 1 May 1707

[list]
1283
[*]Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales

1305
[*]William Wallace

I think you'll find that neither of those two were English, nor had they ever sworn oaths to the Kingdom of England. Both of them were tried and killed at the behest of the same person - Edward I.

Indeed...

In England, there was no clear common law definition of treason; it was for the king and his judges to determine if an offence constituted treason. Thus, the process became open to abuse, and decisions were often arbitrary. For instance, during the reign of Edward III, a knight was convicted of treason because he assaulted one of the king's subjects and held him for a ransom of £90. It was only in 1351 that Parliament passed legislation on the subject of treason.

Silverwall wrote:

cthia wrote:Long long list of failed revoultions, coups and plots.

All these are failures. As well established failing in one of these actions will absolutely get you tried (and probably exectued) for treason. This is normal and how the law works even (especially) in dodgy dictatorships.

The case we are discussing is when the revolution, coup or plot succeeds in changing the fundamental nature of the state. Please provide a new list covering cases where a successful revolution or coup results in the coup/revolution leaders being tried (successfully or otherwise)for treason.

Yep, you could find a long list of people charged with attempted suicide, doubt you'd find many charged with succeeding.

Arguably, in the sense of the John Harrington quote, those listed people's treasons didn't prosper well enough; and hence were called (and they were convicted of) treason.

Treason, in practice, can be considered to have prospered when the treason is sufficiently grand and successful to place those committing it out of the reach of their old government. Usually because:
* that government was overthrown
* independence was achieved due to sufficient military force and/or public support
* they are now under the protection of another powerful country

So, in practice, sufficiently successful treason isn't punished. Insufficiently successful treason is. (That's not to say that sufficiently successful treason is inherently morally right; that's a different question than if the traitors are punished)

The E wrote:

cthia wrote:FYI only and to illustrate that there is no season for treason.

Note that Kings, Queens, dictators, Countesses and the like are not immune from the long armed claw of the law.

I like how you are not addressing criticisms for your absolutist positions and are instead simply doubling down on your stances. That treason is defined as a crime in all jurisdictions is not the issue here. What is is the question whether or not certain types of treason actually can be prosecuted by anyone, and if yes, who that person or institution is.

So, simple question for you, cthia: Who among the surviving legal apparatus of the People's Republic of Haven has standing to prosecute Theisman for his actions in abolishing that particular regime after said regime has been abolished? What's the legal theory you're using here?

To use a historical analogy: After the german reunification and the opening of the Stasi archives, criminal proceedings against identified agents of the east german state were started, targeting citizens of the federal republic who were identifiable from Stasi records.
However, at no point were reciprocal proceedings started on behalf of the east german state versus agents of the federal republic. Why do you think that is?
Going by your argumentation here, you seem to believe that such proceedings would have a legal theory to support them, and I would like to hear just what it is (There actually is a legal theory for why they weren't, but I'll wait on posting that until you've come up with your side of the debate).

Seriously E, you keep asking me the very same questions and I keep answering them and I'm really rather busy. So what is the point?

For the Fifty-Leventh time, it is always treason except when it isn't...

IF it is justified as represented by this most brilliant, respectful and insightful, post...

Annachie wrote:Or you could argue that TT's actions were to fight the illegal OSJ government, and thus can not be considered treason.

He wasn't overthrowing a government, he restored one.
In this sense, immediately restoring the original constitution boosts his case.

Then it isn't.

Which should be adjudicated by some higher authority other than the perpetrator of said crimes.


In Theisman's case, to answer the question yet again, his head should be placed in the hands of the current government—by Theisman himself, if he is indeed the stalwart citizen we all know and love. Theisman should make the move himself on the issue of treason. And let him who should be acquitted be acquitted, by they who are erected to do the acquitting.

There should be no need for Theisman to turn himself in on the charge of murder. Murder is a self-charging crime. As in the DA has to seek justice. He should be charged regardless. Murder is illegal even if committed against someone in another country, regardless even if that person is dead.

Are you saying that since the Old Republic is no longer, the crime of murder does not exist? Or that since Saint-Just no longer exists the crime no longer exist?


But again, what is the point? When I adequately argue, I'm given no credit. You still have not formally yielded to your incorrect assimilation of Harrington's quote. How am I to know I'm not still arguing that?

Or do you still support your assimilation of said quote?



Please note, as always, if this is a debate as you've inferred, I am a single entity arguing the Con of Theisman's actions against all of you. And you E, see your lone questions as the most important. I'm only one person (almost the exact same manifestation of the dilemma that existed in the "God Exists" thread. One man against many, and then the rude accusation that I wasn't responding to every single response.)

Especially now when I'm really quite busy. And since you keep putting to me the same questions even after I address them.

I'd really like to spend some time on other threads.

Like the "Why Manticore Won the War" thread. Since not a single person has yet to offer their own version of an analysis why they think Manticore won the war.

Except for the same old missiles, and ships and tonnage, Oh My!

Leave it up to cthia again. I've been working on mine. It simply requires a bit of thought. Seems there is no rush, since no one has turned in any appropriate response. Yet!

So I guess when I do turn in my analysis, it'll be worth say... seventy-six, currently, of the submitted posts.

In an attempt to reiterate my stance more concisely so as to head off more reiterations of the same questions, my absolutist stance is not that treason will always be treason but that the determination of said reason it is not treason should be the season of the courts -- certainly not the season of the perpetrator.

Your honor, I'd like to represent myself and represent the courts too. So do dismiss yourself.

I was the executioner in "judge, jury and executioner" when I committed these alleged crimes.

I'd like to continue in that endeavor wearing the hat of the judge and jury, please.

Since I'm the judge and juror, I'm certain not to need the third hat!

I wish everyone will stop trotting out the same insane testimony that the crime of treason inherently whites out itself in the passion of victory -- pursuant to and fueled by the incorrect assimilation of John Harrington's quote. It does not.

What it does do, is supply the current government a bottle of legal white-out.

White-out that is only legal if applied by authorized personnel.

munroburton wrote:Sorry to drag the topic aside, but...

cthia wrote:List of people convicted of high treason in England before 1 May 1707

[list]
1283
[*]Dafydd ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales

1305
[*]William Wallace

I think you'll find that neither of those two were English, nor had they ever sworn oaths to the Kingdom of England. Both of them were tried and killed at the behest of the same person - Edward I.

Indeed...

In England, there was no clear common law definition of treason; it was for the king and his judges to determine if an offence constituted treason. Thus, the process became open to abuse, and decisions were often arbitrary. For instance, during the reign of Edward III, a knight was convicted of treason because he assaulted one of the king's subjects and held him for a ransom of £90. It was only in 1351 that Parliament passed legislation on the subject of treason.

Apology not needed. Though your slant towards respect is noted and commendable.

Treason is creed, color, country and national origin blind.

Yes, I read that fact in the wiki. It is why the Wiki separates the charges by the eras.

cthia wrote:Seriously E, you keep asking me the very same questions and I keep answering them and I'm really rather busy. So what is the point?

I keep asking the same questions because you keep not answering them.

You have so far:
1. Not established a legal theory under which treason against a regime that was overthrown through said treason can or has to be prosecuted by the successor government
2. Not established an authority that would be able to prosecute on behalf of said ex-government.

You keep saying that treason is illegal and must be prosecuted. Okay. Let's take that as read and move on to the implementation of just how exactly that would work out, using Thomas Theisman as an example. Okay? Okay.

Which should be adjudicated by some higher authority other than the perpetrator of said crimes.

And what is that authority, in that moment? Who are the judges, who are the investigators? Who will execute the verdict?

In Theisman's case, to answer the question yet again, his head should be placed in the hands of the current government—by Theisman himself, if he is indeed the stalwart citizen we all know and love. Theisman should make the move himself on the issue of treason. And let him who should be acquitted be acquitted, by they who are erected to do the acquitting.

So, Theisman should be judged by ... himself, or people he appointed? Am I reading that right?

You want these proceedings to be above board. You cannot afford them to be tainted by conflicts of interest, and there's no way I can see (but you apparently do) that they can be avoided.

There should be no need for Theisman to turn himself in on the charge of murder. Murder is a self-charging crime. As in the DA has to seek justice. He should be charged regardless. Murder is illegal even if committed against someone in another country, regardless even if that person is dead.

However, there are situations where a conditional immunity for murder is granted to agents of the executive (which Theisman was when he decided to act against a perceived domestic threat to the constitution of the Republic of Haven).

Are you saying that since the Old Republic is no longer, the crime of murder does not exist? Or that since Saint-Just no longer exists the crime no longer exist?

I'm saying that the crime of treason against the People's Republic doesn't exist.
I am also saying that, in the course of discharging his duties as an officer of the Republic of Haven, it became necessary for Theisman to commit a criminal act against his nominal Commander in Chief (starting with several acts of sedition, mutiny, disobeyance of standing orders, and culminating in one count of premeditated murder). This does not excuse the murder charge, but at the same time, there is ample precedent for officers of the state having to commit what could be called murder in the pursuit of their overriding duty to ensure public safety.

But again, what is the point? When I adequately argue, I'm given no credit. You still have not formally yielded to your incorrect assimilation of Harrington's quote. How am I to know I'm not still arguing that?

Or do you still support your assimilation of said quote?

The E wrote:You are, I hope, aware of the concept of the death of the author. Most works the quote shows up in in popular culture use it as an explicit reference to treason, successfully executed, not staying treason for long, i.e. using its literal meaning as opposed to whatever meaning Harington was perhaps envisioning as he wrote the phrase.

You were arguing that your interpretation was the correct one, based on your reading of secondary commentary on Harington's original word. I have not found primary commentary by Harington himself on the subject; Even if you do, the fact of the matter is that the context in which the quote is used in current discussions (which happens more often than not in support of treason for a just cause) is way more important than its historical context. "Death of the Author" is an important part of critical theory, and it is applicable here. My use of the phrase, both in its original and my paraphrased wording, is based on the contemporary usage of it.

In short: Deal with it.

Please note, as always, if this is a debate as you've inferred, I am a single entity arguing the Con of Theisman's actions against all of you. And you E, see your lone questions as the most important. I'm only one person (almost the exact same manifestation of the dilemma that existed in the "God Exists" thread. One man against many, and then the rude accusation that I wasn't responding to every single response.)

That is a dilemma of your own making. Your postings here or elsewhere getting picked apart from multiple angles has more to do with you choosing particularly hard-to-defend positions and insisting that you are correct despite many well-reasoned objections to them than anything else.

In this particular case, as I pointed out in an earlier post, you chose the position that treason is a crime that must be prosecuted and traitors criminals that must be punished, regardless of the circumstances and outcome of their crime. This invites not commentary but contradiction, something I find to be true of other, similarly absolutist stances you've adopted in other threads.

Especially now when I'm really quite busy. And since you keep putting to me the same questions even after I address them.

I don't give a single fuck about how busy you are. You chose to start this topic, you chose to defend your positions; You choose to be on this forum despite whatever else you may be doing with your time, and if you cannot find the time to do so, well, that's not my problem.

You can always choose to withdraw from a discussion such as this. That's your prerogative. But you do not get to demand others stop responding to you because you're "too busy". That's nonsense.

I'd really like to spend some time on other threads.

Then do that! I'm not stopping you.

Except, in the sense that you cannot let me have the last word on an issue which you clearly care about deeply. Which, again? Not my problem.

cthia wrote:Seriously E, you keep asking me the very same questions and I keep answering them and I'm really rather busy. So what is the point?

The E wrote:I keep asking the same questions because you keep not answering them.

Beg pardon?

The E wrote:You have so far:
1. Not established a legal theory under which treason against a regime that was overthrown through said treason can or has to be prosecuted by the successor government

Pffft, legal theory has been emplaced by the law since its inception!

The E wrote:2. Not established an authority that would be able to prosecute on behalf of said ex-government.

Therein is your disconnect. Small mind - small picture. Bigger minds - the bigger picture.

Governments are -- taking our own Constitution for example -- of the people, by the people, for the people. The people, E. NOT the RHN or President Pritchart. The crime of treason was committed against Haven and its citizens. The crime of murder was committed against Haven and all of its citizens. Along with Saint-Just and Saint-Just's loved ones and friends.

Before you fly off all half-cocked as usual and ask something silly, as usual like...

"Who cares?"

The segment of the population who supported the Old Regime, cares. Saint-Just's family and loved ones care. Those who abhor President Pritchart and or even Thomas Theisman care. I don't know what percentage of supporters the Old Republic had. Neither do you! All we as readers were exposed to, as far as I can remember, are the prejudiced rants of officers of the military. Sure, as a reader I can sympathize with the officers of the RHN. But that is besides the point. Everyone is having a hard time removing their own personal bias. Typical here. And again, typical, you all see yourselves as being correct because you are all in the majority. Please!

The E wrote:You keep saying that treason is illegal and must be prosecuted. Okay. Let's take that as read and move on to the implementation of just how exactly that would work out, using Thomas Theisman as an example. Okay? Okay.

Play it again, Sam.

Theisman should turn himself in to Pritchart. At least relay his willingness to be judged for both potential crimes.

Play it again, Sam.

Theisman should turn himself in to Pritchart. At least relay his willingness to be judged for both potential crimes.

Play it again, Sam.

Theisman should turn himself in to Pritchart. At least relay his willingness to be judged for both potential crimes.

Which should be adjudicated by some higher authority other than the perpetrator of said crimes.

The E wrote:And what is that authority, in that moment? Who are the judges, who are the investigators? Who will execute the verdict?

That is for the proper authorities to decide. Hell, if Honor could do it on Hades. What is the problem? Please!

In Theisman's case, to answer the question yet again, his head should be placed in the hands of the current government—by Theisman himself, if he is indeed the stalwart citizen we all know and love. Theisman should make the move himself on the issue of treason. And let him who should be acquitted be acquitted, by they who are erected to do the acquitting.

The E wrote:So, Theisman should be judged by ... himself, or people he appointed? Am I reading that right?

You want these proceedings to be above board. You cannot afford them to be tainted by conflicts of interest, and there's no way I can see (but you apparently do) that they can be avoided.

Now you're just be insanely asinine.

There should be no need for Theisman to turn himself in on the charge of murder. Murder is a self-charging crime. As in the DA has to seek justice. He should be charged regardless. Murder is illegal even if committed against someone in another country, regardless even if that person is dead.

The E wrote:However, there are situations where a conditional immunity for murder is granted to agents of the executive (which Theisman was when he decided to act against a perceived domestic threat to the constitution of the Republic of Haven).

Agreed. Agreed. Agreed. As it stands, Theisman has usurped his own immunity.

It. Is. Not. Formal. Make it formal, so that the segment of the population who are still screaming will be appeased. So a blot won't go down in the history books. A blot which can be seen through the whiteout by those with a magnifying glass.

Believe it or not, there are citizens of Haven who are not amused. Who are indeed still screaming treason and murder! They have a right to be represented!

It seems you have no formal debate experience.

We as readers were only exposed to one side of the coin! The RHN's story!

Are you saying that since the Old Republic is no longer, the crime of murder does not exist? Or that since Saint-Just no longer exists the crime no longer exist?

E wrote:I'm saying that the crime of treason against the People's Republic doesn't exist.

Says who? The E? Theisman? The majority of the constituents of Haven? The minority constituents of Haven? Does the crime of murder against Saint-Just not exist because HE does not exist? Nonsense!

The E wrote:I am also saying that, in the course of discharging his duties as an officer of the Republic of Haven, it became necessary for Theisman to commit a criminal act against his nominal Commander in Chief (starting with several acts of sedition, mutiny, disobeyance of standing orders, and culminating in one count of premeditated murder). This does not excuse the murder charge, but at the same time, there is ample precedent for officers of the state having to commit what could be called murder in the pursuit of their overriding duty to ensure public safety.

A g r e e d!

But Theisman does not have the right to assume his own innocence! Gees!

But again, what is the point? When I adequately argue, I'm given no credit. You still have not formally yielded to your incorrect assimilation of Harrington's quote. How am I to know I'm not still arguing that?

Or do you still support your assimilation of said quote?

The E wrote:You are, I hope, aware of the concept of the death of the author. Most works the quote shows up in in popular culture use it as an explicit reference to treason, successfully executed, not staying treason for long, i.e. using its literal meaning as opposed to whatever meaning Harington was perhaps envisioning as he wrote the phrase.

Yatta yatta yatta.

The E wrote:You were arguing that your interpretation was the correct one,

IS the correct one. I think you know it, as I certainly made it clear. Stubbornness just won't allow you to admit it. But do continue in your error.

The E wrote:... based on your reading of secondary commentary on Harington's original word. I have not found primary commentary by Harington himself on the subject; Even if you do, the fact of the matter is that the context in which the quote is used in current discussions (which happens more often than not in support of treason for a just cause) is way more important than its historical context. "Death of the Author" is an important part of critical theory, and it is applicable here. My use of the phrase, both in its original and my paraphrased wording, is based on the contemporary usage of it.

It has never been used in support of treason. Never! It has been a mocking jester at it. Always! Better schools produce lesser fools.

The E wrote:In short: Deal with it.

You have to deal with your own ignorance on the matter. I simply have to encounter it -- unless I don't. Your ignorance on the matter won't embarrass me in a social setting.

Please note, as always, if this is a debate as you've inferred, I am a single entity arguing the Con of Theisman's actions against all of you. And you E, see your lone questions as the most important. I'm only one person (almost the exact same manifestation of the dilemma that existed in the "God Exists" thread. One man against many, and then the rude accusation that I wasn't responding to every single response.)

The E wrote:That is a dilemma of your own making.

True. Yet I never imagined I'd be inundated with childishness. But, as you've said, it is my doing. Especially when I light so many fires seeking intelligent conversation in several threads at once. Point taken.

The E wrote:Your postings here or elsewhere getting picked apart

Opinion alert! I wholeheartedly disagree. 50-1 in pitchforks simply mean you have more pitchforks. Says not a darn thing about the sharpness of the teeth.

The E wrote:... from multiple angles has more to do with you choosing particularly hard-to-defend positions and insisting that you are correct despite many well-reasoned objections to them than anything else.

Correct positions are not hard to defend. Unpopular positions may be dangerous, of which -- some lawyers will attest, but not difficult.

The E wrote:In this particular case, as I pointed out in an earlier post, you chose the position that treason is a crime that must be prosecuted and traitors criminals that must be punished, regardless of the circumstances and outcome of their crime. This invites not commentary but contradiction, something I find to be true of other, similarly absolutist stances you've adopted in other threads.

yatta yatta yatta. Opinion and error in assimilating what I said.

Must not be prosecuted, must be adjudicated by a court of law.

Especially now when I'm really quite busy. And since you keep putting to me the same questions even after I address them.

The E wrote:I don't give a single fuck about how busy you are. You chose to start this topic, you chose to defend your positions; You choose to be on this forum despite whatever else you may be doing with your time, and if you cannot find the time to do so, well, that's not my problem.

It is not your problem, no. Rules on the forum demand a bit of respect. That IS your problem. No need to use such language. Not a single fuck of respect? How 'bout half-a-fuck?

The E wrote:You can always choose to withdraw from a discussion such as this. That's your prerogative. But you do not get to demand others stop responding to you because you're "too busy". That's nonsense.

True. I can always withdraw.

What I ask is that you stop asking the same questions after I've answered them hoping that I'll relent to untruths and insanity.

I'd really like to spend some time on other threads.

The E wrote:Then do that! I'm not stopping you.

Actually, you are. Your insanity directed at me is hard to ignore. Letting some of the razors you throw out lie, is difficult not to correct as they may cut someone else. If you rather ignore the correct interpretation of Harrington's quote, doesn't mean everyone else does. Among other bouts of erroneous illogic you sputter.

The E wrote:Except, in the sense that you cannot let me have the last word on an issue which you clearly care about deeply. Which, again? Not my problem.

Take the last incorrect word if you must. If the last word, and not truth, is what you desire. Truth is of the essence and is what I care about. Intelligent discussion as well. So much for both.

Don't worry, my time in this forum is winding down.

CHEERS TO ALL! BEERS TO ALL!

I DON'T DRINK BUT I WILL ON THIS OCCASION!

The issue is just as much for Theisman's benefit. He has a right to be formally exonerated from what history may infer. As does his descendants down the line that may one day have to hear "Your daddy, uncle, grandfather was a traitor!"